is at a very surgical approach to this campaign. he hasn't tried to be hopeful or project an optimistic message. what he is done is gone through and made sure he said things that if the voting blocs he needs to be with him to get them fired up so he could go after women and after hispanics, young folks, people who benefited from the auto bailout in ohio and michigan and wisconsin. we heard none of that tonight. ..

that's what is in the news. we didn't hear that tonight. he really stuck to the script. >> go to denver for a minute. we have governor o'malley joining us live outside of "the spin room". governor, we've been up here talking and sort of looking at other coverage so far, pundits, but mostly talking to even democrats. democrats seemed disappointed in the president last night. people feel mitt romney had a much better debate performance. crass crisper on a lot of policy arguments. push back on that. tell us why he won, if you believe that?

>> well, i think that, yeah, governor romney might well have been more aggressive but i don't believe he was more presidential. i believe the president obama handled himself with that dignified reserve is his hallmark. anybody that expected him to come out in an aggressive in your face way has not been watching the president for these last four years. i thought the president was particularly strong tonight, especially in contrasting the two economic views of these candidates. president obama's view of how we fix our economy. much more in line with main strewn americans believe, the middle class believes. the things that president clinton used, balanced approach. opportunity and, i thought that governor romney really didn't do anything to dissuade the general public from the view that he would like to go back to the days of the bush tax cuts for the wealthy and hope that this time, instead of growing deficits, and growing unemployment, that it grows

jobs. so governor romney really needed a game changer tonight. i hate to say this but i find myself agreeing with chris christie. governor romney really needed to turn the world upside down. he really need ad game changer tonight. i think you would be sore pressed to find that magic moment that was the game-changer tonight. and, so, that was my view in watching it anyway. i also thought the president did a very good job finally nailing governor romney down to admitting he does want to turn medicare into a voucher program. i thought the president pushed back on that very effectively, when he said, hey, if you're 55 you might want to listen to this. i'm still not sure exactly what governor romney was saying about his promise of $5 trillion in tax cuts. i mean i heard the platitudes but i didn't hear any specifics. and, i thought he was doing a lot of shape shifting on that one. >> governor, good evening. this is rachel.

we've been talking on set here about our surprise we didn't hear more from the president on his standard attack line. we thought we would heard more on the 47%. more attacks on bain. why do you think those were absent from this debate? >> because i think that this debate needed to get to the, you know, the two contrasting plans that these two mortal individuals are bringing to the american people. look, we can choose greater tax cuts for, for the wealthy and see if that works better for us this time. or, we can, we can get back to the more balanced approach that president clinton used to retire deficits and our parents and grandparents used to investing in education and innovation and rebuilding our country in order to create more opportunity for the middle class. so, i think that the, i think that the president, you know, was keeping the

debate focused on the questions, answering those questions. think what most people saw at home tonight were not any new ideas really from governor romney for a job creation. i didn't hear one. i was listening very closely. his trickle down theory is the same stuff we heard before. you know, and he, you know, do more tax cuts and somehow we'll grow jobs instead of deficits this time. that is not the way the arithmetic works. i thought the president pointed that out with typical dignified reserve he brings to the highest office in the land. >> we appreciate you joining us, sir. we'll check in with you at the next debate. interesting comments. i would even say reading the governor's body language, that wasn't like, this was not a full throated endorsement of the obama performance. bill maher, who donated a million dollars to president obama's super pac, obviously very liberal guy tweet ad couple of interesting things. this is i want to speak why i think this matters.

he said obama's not look like he came for a job interview. romney so far does. i don't believe i'm say being this but obama need as teleprompter. obama made a lot of great points tonight, unfortunately most of them were for romney. when you, we saw this with mitt romney, when you have members of your own party, activists and donors carping about your performance it starts to feed a media narrative. i personally believe that was the engine of the bad coverage for mitt romney. it wasn't that the mainstream media suddenly turned on mitt romney. it is a conservative turned on mitt romney. bill kristol. friendly fire. >> the friendly fire. what do you do as a reporter if you have members of either the campaign or of their allies saying that they're not doing a good job? it begets bad stories. so i think john harrison was on earlier, made a great point. that the at the very least you already see it from bill crows tell -- bill kristol

and others not criticism for week or two. probably longer. gives him a respite and there could be more questioning about obama's performance among democrats. in the pew study, what seeps in. coverage eventually seeps in and affects mood of swing voters. >> the question becomes, romney had a good night tonight. does that give him momentum where that changes the dynamics of the campaign and come in again the in next debate and build on that and give two more dominant performances? or, do we have the vp debate next week that changes the narrative once again? i think you can expect the president to come in stronger and crisper next time. the president is a fierce competitor. he does not like to lose. so i think we can all assume that he will go back and do many so more debate prep. >> what we'll see from the obama staff and surrogates in their appearances next 20 four hours push this back

being a choice between two people. mitt romney moved it back more referendum on the president. we have the official obama spin. this is the literal party line, what they're going to be saying in their tv appearances in the morning. they say mitt romney continues to fail the details test. tax cuts, replacing obama, replacing wall street reform. double down on the big economic ideas that crashed the economy. what is missing from that line? anything about the president. just about mitt romney. >> that is consistent what we heard from governor o'malley just now saying i was listening very closely for new idea on job creation. i didn't hear one. we're hearing those talking points already. >> undoubtedly the coverage next couple days will be interesting. we head into a vice-presidential aol debate. the last vice-presidential debate got more viewers than the presidential debates largely because of sarah palin. >> call me joe.

owe biden. >> and i think this will be another very well-watched and spirited debate. two very interesting, very position gnat, you know, in some ways both of them are the heart beat of the campaign. biden clearly more notional guy, excitable guy. ryan certainly more passionate and probably much more articulate when it comes to litigating the specifics of medicare and complex budget issues. you will this interesting ebb, mike this morning nailed it in playbook. this morning listen for watch of signs a lot of comeback stories. before you had this debate performance you had this video that weigh talked about. it was leaked out. it was five years old. but there is a lot of stuff in there that the obama campaign would rather not deal with. there's a couple of polls. one in virginia. one in florida, that showed those states tighting. >> republicans say there is one coming from ohio, republican inturnnal polls. they were sick about ohio. they're feeling better about

it. >> any of this controversy over libya which was not brought up for whatever reason in the debate tonight. but obama, president obama has been under fire for their shifting explanation of why an ambassador was killed and what the root cause of that was. they initially said it had to do with silly videotape making fun of muslims. in fact it turns out this is organized effort by terrorists, probably associated with al qaeda. at a complex that didn't have as much security if you look at the reporting as it probably should have. probably not going to be a decisive issue in the campaign but another issue that goes to, was this a successful presidency? is he prosecuting things in a competent way? >> root cause and administration handling of it to note that the vice president told there is only one, and that will cover everything. it will not be just a domestic debate. so everything will be fair game. tonight really increases the stakes for next week's debate. for ryan becomes more

incumbent on him to try to keep the momentum going, that mitt romney established tonight. and for biden the question will be can he turn the narrative around once again. >> truth bomb from mark halperin worked for msnbc and "time" magazine, political writer. talked to david a axelrod, romney may pick up a point or two in the polls as a result of this debate. doesn't sound like someone declaring his guy the winner. >> another e-mail we got from the other side, republicans on the hill have been very down on both mitt romney and his campaign. don't understand why he hasn't been able to convince the american people what his jobs plan. top person on capitol hill e-mails, republicans needed him to come through and he did in a big way. demonstrated he can hit well in the clutch. i can't emphasize that enough for viewers, particularly the folks that don't come to "politico" every day. it was hard over the last three weeks for me to find a republican operative, a

republican elected official, a republican, even inside of romney's own campaign who felt self-confident, who felt confident about their guy. everybody was belly aching. we went up to do some reporting about this fiscal cliff debate on capitol hill? we talked to republicans. republicans talk about the debate like it is a foregone conclusion president obama was going to win re-election. just the mood going in and the mood going out is dramatic to have people actually saying hey, romney our guy. best debate in 20 years are coming from "the weekly standard", by bill kristol who spent the last month being a professional romney critic. >> expectations game moving forward because harder for republicans argue before the next presidential debate and president obama is great orator and romney is so, so. we saw romney give stronger performance. expectations for him will be higher in the next debate. >> james, one of our 10 to 20 reporters we have on the

ground at the debate in denver has been in the spin room. he is joining us. hey, homan, forget the romney side of things for a second. what are you hearing from the obama officials that are in "the spin room"? is anyone making the case that in fact he won or are they being more clear eyed in the assessment of it? >> they're being more clear eyed, jim. some private grumbling about jim lehrer. you're hearing some people say with the halperin quote you said, kind of downplaying the significance of this thing. most people made up their minds. you're hearing what mike mentioned a few minutes ago, people saying yeah, romney did well stylelisticly but not substantively. i can tell you on the republican side i'm sensing real confidence. the republicans are the first people to get in the spin room. they came pouring in with their placards during the closing statements. obama people came a couple minutes later much more aggressive. i've been trying not to just talk to romney campaigners and republicans not closely

associated with romney campaign people like al cardenas, chairman of the american conservative union, rudy giuliani, not always a mitt romney fan. they're all telling me they really think the dynamic of the race shifted a little bit. we'll see how much. the spirit is high among republicans and it seems relatively authentic. >> james writes a product for us called the morning score. you can sign up for it on "politico". supposed to be out by 6:00. sometimes james is slacking, gets out around 8:00. >> 6:00 mountain taken time. >> everything happening in the campaign and presidential campaign and congressional campaigns. jails, take us inside, putting aside the debate for a second. has there been anything else that you've been seeing as you look at all these polls, as you consider all these focus groups, has there been anything until this debate moment that suggested that things might be moving at all in romney's direction? >> absolutely.

i've been writing about it every day in morning score for a week. i mean, like our battleground poll we published on monday shows the national race tightening a point closer than it was a week before, within the margin error. romney opened up a lead he hadn't had a week before, month before, who is the better of two to handle the economy and create jobs. romney narrowed deficit about who cares for the middle class. there are kind of four important metrics i've been paying a lot of attention to within our poll and other polls that are kind of lower in the cross tabs but matter a great deal which is, who is a strong leader? who can get things done? and those have been neck-and-neck. romney has had the lead on who can actually get things done and, i think he will, he will build on that. but the fact that more people thought romney would be the best of the two candidates to actually accomplish something shows there was upside potential and upside growth. you remember back in 2008, i've been saying this for months, at the height of his popularity barack obama only

got 52.9% of the popular vote. so, even though he still is leading in the swing states and those will tighten up, romney does have a floor that he can build off of from 2008. >> holman, a great american. we appreciate it. enjoy the rest of your night in denver. this is what i call an honor. craig gordon, runs our coverage. don't even know what the title is anymore. managing editor. he runs our news coverage. makes big decisions. you got out of a meeting sigh assume about our coverage. >> i did. >> how will we coverage. >> we'll write three different analysis pieces say the same thing. mitt romney had a pretty bad night. first or second -- >> debate and redundancies and stories i have cost savings idea. >> don't talk about those on set. glen is very close. just filed a story which i will give a way a little bit here obama looked like a guy having trouble shaking off the russ. being doing a lot of

softball interviews and focus stuff. mitt romney went through a bunch of debates. 27 in certain amount of time. he came out looking like a guy who can stand in with the president of the united states and throw a few punches and take a few munches. obama seemed sleepy. the guy who showed up at convention to give that speech. a lot of us watched obama's speech at convention. seems off his game. seems like sleep walking. felt that same guy was here tonight. glen will tell us about that. one of the favorite stories, "politico", trademark store which we do, one of the things she will include in her story, barack obama left a lot of best lines on table. did not say 47%. did not talk about bain. mitt's tax returns. some i think more effective attack lines on the table. didn't mention any of those things tonight. megyn talk about that. cautionary note about maggie. remember, john kerry had a really good first debate against george bush. accused of sleep walking in that debate.

bush went on a long bike ride that day. was a little bit tired. bush came back in next two debates and cleaned up and obviously went on to win. >> history of incumbent presidents losing first debate. we saw that with president reagan when he was running for re-election. these guys, they're not used to being challenged they become so convinced what they're doing. they heard it for 4:00 years. they don't realize you're making sale all over again. >> right. for obama, can you reelect me. i have got work to do here. let's get this over with. 37 days to go up wrap this up. people want to see you fight for it and really win the job again. >> i think one of the things they're probably debating internally whether or not they played it to save. >> right. >> that to me seemed like a debate, they went in, you know what? got the thing basically wrapped up stall stall a little bit. don't look con today sending in your facial expression. don't say anything that will be offensive to swing voters. by, playing it safe, it

sometimes came off as soft. that's what a lot of people are e-mailing me. even like how he held himself. didn't hold himself in a presidential way. mitt romney kind of looks like central casting type of guy to begin with. but i think video images they matter. clearly mattered because so many people were tweeting about it. the way that they were this holding themselves as candidates. the guy is a up here competitive guy. the president is one of the most competitive people that we know and there is no doubt that he is also, i think pretty honest self-critic. he will go back and say listen guys, this was not a good one. i think staff will fire you up get in the game for the next one. >> right. some of the books been writen about obama so far definitely like i'm a game time performer famous quote in one of the first books. i'm lebron, baby. that is barack obama. definitely this is practice stuff. i do it when the lights go on. that is really hard to do. you saw the difference between a guy in mitt romney prepare ad ton as they told

us about and obama perhaps not as much. doesn't seem to have any fun up there. that was part of it. there was sense i got all the stuff i want to say. fact in my head will spew them out. and mix them up and no sense of joy or excitement from obama. viewers react to that. >> something sobering for obama reaction has been almost universal, we're seeing chris matthews on msnbc saying, where was obama tonight? >> right. i think that is storyline you will see a lot tomorrow. we're already planning that story for tomorrow's weather today. jonathan will have the third analysis piece will try to say mitt romney had a really good night tonight. by all accounts, what does that really mean? nine points behind in ohio. 10 points in virginia. how much can debate do to put a floor. i think it can do a lot to change the mood of whole campaign, donors, voters. one debate. one night. >> that is one of the big concerns i talked about earlier. look at "wall street journal" editorial page this morning often a very good indication

where sort of the movement is in their assessment of things. both lead editorial and editorial by fred barnes who wrote a piece for them usually works for "weekly standard", both were very critical how this campaign messages and how they run ads. i think the big question will be can they take this moment, take whatever, whatever magic they had and can they bottle it up and then transplant it into advertising into stump speeches, into the narrative of the campaign? so far they have not been great at that. i would say the obama campaign has been significantly better in its ads. significantly better in its targeting. there is five weeks. they have got gobs of money. lord knows everyone has enough money around here for the campaign. but that is an outstanding question. i'm sure james will get at in his piece. how do they do that? how do they take this new focus and basically create a new campaign. >> they're going to have more money because outside groups which had been looking at whether they could move some of it to the congressional races, now are

all fired up, like all the response from them has been, very positive. they're excited about it. and obama, mitt romney looks like a winner. that will help him. will help the staff. will help us out. >> if he did nothing more than keep crossroads types groups saying we're not going to go -- >> he has done that i can tell you from online. >> that is $20 million. $40 million help. >> people don't realize that because of the new campaign finance laws, if you get sheldon adelson say that was such a good performance i will drop another $40 million into your campaign which they can do? >> sheldon adelson got in the hall. got to see it first-hand. >> could have cut the check on the spot. it is possible. we did a recently a very good piece on sheldon. you interviewed him. extraordinary amount of money can put into campaign. >> four times the previous record. most previous individual given, george soros $24 million in 2004 against

george w. bush. >> he wasn't done yet. that is what i took away from your story. >> no, absolutely. >> if it will make a difference he will get. >> we've been able to study the obama campaign, the operation for, you know, five, five 1/2 years sort of in campaign mode and governing mode. how do they react to moment like this? they obviously don't panic but they do what? how do they take a bad thing and neutralize it and ultimately a good thing. how? >> the president has an expression. talks about our time in the barrel. and he's been the underdog enough times. he has gone through enough times. that, they're smart and they know our time in the barrel is going to come and this now is their time. they're in the barrel and they're going to spend a couple of days trying to convince people that he has game. and, two weeks from now, the debate at hofstra, in new york, he will get to show but, i thought that was a

very smart point you made about the sort of soft interviews. i bet we'll see him out doing some tougher ones. mixing it up a little bit showing he has got game. >> couple minutes left. glen tlush is writing analysis, one of many analysis. >> shake the russ off analysis. >> with a hot looking hat. tell me what your analysis says? has it been posted yet? people get a sneak-peek via you? >> i got to tell you man, i just heard the last tail of that point. i think all the soft interviews, the speaking to the crowds. i love you back stuff has really worn on him. it has been 1400 days since he has been in an environment where he got punched in the mouth and he got punched in the mouth tonight and i think -- something to be said for being presidential. there is also something to be said for descending into the fray and really figuring out how to go after your opponent. i don't think he should have gone to the hoover dam on monday.

>> glen, we appreciate it. only a minute left in the program. we appreciate you for joining us. look forward to reading your analysis. punch you in the mouth. people don't understand, you new yorkers, we hire you. we try to get you guys to speak in calm tones, not offend our audiences but the guy shows up with the ha and next thing you know he is a wild man. fascinating night. lots of coverage we'll have in the morning. are we going to do fact check pieces? >> eight reporters are picking through all the points of debate. five trillion, solyndra stuff. dodd-frank, romney sort of saying he thinks dodd-frank is too tough on banks or something. we'll try to call him out on something. >> do we know off the top of our heads what the biggest whopper was in the debate? something said, no, that is even close? >> dodd-frank is not pretty close. you heard romney they're getting a big break from dodd-frank and trying to get rid of it ever passed. >> that is not what people will remember. what people will remember

mitt rom -- president obama off his game. i got e-mail from a top republican extremely critical of romney. two words no one will ever use again, bob dole. the idea this would be like '96 and president would be clear leader in the race vanquished tonight. >> i think the big question is how do you take this stuff and take your campaign. there are fundamental problems with this campaign when you talk to them internally. they have had a hard time getting message right. staying on message. taking the best of mitt romney and putting it on display each and every day. if they can do it is 50-50 country. polls are tightening. watch ohio starts to tighten it is a race that truly tightens. >> watch politico.com >> president obama and mitt romney will meet for two more debates before the general election. the next debate is set for

tuesday, october 16th at hofstra university in new york. if will be a town hall-style debate. cnn's candy crowley will moderate. the third and final debate, october 22nd and will focus entirely on foreign policy. cbs face the nation host, bob schiefer moderates. >> we need to tackle our nation's challenges before they tackle us. we need to save and strengthen medicare and social security and we're putting the ideas on the table how to do that. we're not going to try to scare seniors. we'll save these benefits for seniors and for my generation so these promises are kept. >> they have laid out clearly, they say, that what barack obama and joe biden did they have endangered medicare. they have stole money from medicare and they have done it to get obamacare and all this. and you see it in the ads and hear it in everything

they say. nothing could be further from the truth. >> next thursday night, october 11th, congressman paul ryan and vice president joe biden will face off in their only debate. abc news's martha radditz moderates from center college in danville, kentucky. you can watch and engage with c-span in the live debate preview at 7:00 p.m. iron and following the debate at 9:00. e-mails, calls and tweets at 10:30. c-span radio and c-span online at c-span.org. coming up tonight on c-span2, brookings institution forum on presidential leadership styles. that is followed by a look at the reasoning why behind some people vote. later we take a look at the impact of the youth vote in the 2012 presidential election. tomorrow on "washington journal", your reaction to the presidential debate. which candidate best addressed your concerns and

the issues that matter to you. your thoughts on the first presidential debate all morning starting at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. . .

the former utah governor was among speakers at a brookings institution forum, looking up at the obama and romney campaigns reveal about the candidates leadership styles. it is 90 minutes. [inaudible conversations] >> okay, good morning. we would like to get started. the direct your -- i would like to welcome you to today's events on campaign leadership. where webcasting today's events. we picked events. with that to welcome those of you watching via the internet. we also have c-span with us today. we will be life tweaking the

event using the hash tag be added later. any of you who wish to post comments or ask questions, please do so and during the q&a. we'll take questions both from a live audience here as well as our virtual audience. the question about leadership has been a big part of the 2012 election. so presidential candidates conduct offers incentives to his leadership style and approach to management. so the questions we will be looking at today is how does the 2012 presidential campaign shed light on the leadership qualities a president obama and governor romney, and what does the campaign experience, as we've seen so far indicates about their approach to management and governance. today we have assembled an outstanding panel speakers to help us analyze these questions. jon huntsman is a past presidential candidate so he has a lot of authenticity to discuss

leadership question. >> if i know anything about the subject matter, i wouldn't be here today. >> well, we are still pleased that you are here. many of you know that transfer was elected governor of utah in 2004, week about a very distinguished record. he oversaw a major tax on health care reform and also major improvements in public education. following his service as governor, he was appointed by president obama as ambassador to china in 2009. he left a position to run for president and gained a tremendous respect for his forthright discussion of important policy challenges. this fall, governor huntsman asked to join brookings institution a distinguished fellow, so we are pleased to call him our colleague. bart gordon as partner at k. and l. gates and distinguished fellow at the council on

competitiveness. burke is a former representative from the state of tennessee. he served in congress for 26 years. from 2007 to 2010 he served as chairman of the house committee on science and technology. bart is working with the brookings institution to improve public sector leadership is part of our new initiative on improving leadership and management. william kristol is the editor of "the weekly standard," which he cofounded in 1995. purchaser is not view of the project for the republican future. he also served as chief of staff to vice president quayle and secretary of education, bill bennett. he also served to john mccain. all of these t-bill regularly on fox news sunday in the fox news channel. i actually met ellen 1981 when he was a very young assistant professor at the university of

pennsylvania. it's been great to see all the things he's accomplished since that time. so the question i would like to pose for each of you, and i'll start with governor huntsman. what does the 2012 election reveal about the respective leadership styles of obama and romney? >> probably not much. >> okay, what this panel -- >> see you later. >> you can extrapolate a few things from president obama's first term that might be instructive. he isn't a manager. he doesn't have a history of managing things, so you bring in a bout of good, well-trained, smart people, given their tasks and he tried to lead a government. in the case of governor romney, who has been a governor, who is a business guy, he has run the olympics. i think his attitude would be efficiency. i'm going to come in and looking

a government like a business, which sometimes is not the right answer because government isn't a business. you can always find efficiencies and you should always be looking for efficiencies. but i haven't seen a good example yet of a business person, to government and make it run like a business. there's a lot of talk about that, but we forget the cultures are very different and the presumed outcomes are different as well. i think we are missing here an opportunity for both candidates to be leading -- using these very important weeks ahead to lead a national discussion on priorities. you know, to frame the real priorities for the country come which seems to get lost in the garble or the cacophony of the message today. but it's probably not unusual because you look at elections past, whether it was president obama talking about renegotiating nafta during his

campaign or listen to be or bill clinton, the butchers of beijing, he ends up forging a pretty strong relationship with china. so i think you have to discount a lot of the rhetoric and a lot of what you hear about priorities at this point. and probably conclude that when they do get an office that harold macmillan words will probably try things more than anything else and that is events, my dear boy, events. and then they get back to what you're saying. what will be their management style? what will be their ability based on history to respond to those events as they arise. >> what leadership clues have you picked up? >> i think we have an incumbent president, so one would argue, we know how he'll be inclined to govern. i no one would argue, maybe not.

obama took over and all night and unusual circumstance. he was majority of both houses. apparently feel the administration, huge financial crisis. he did various things. ron emanuel as chief of staff understood how to manage congress demanded up to for anything to congress more than amnesty weighs in on obama obama cares about. he is now mayor of chicago and then of course there was a 2010 election and then president obama had a different circumstance. so it may be that actually you get a new start if he wins in a way. it's to know what the congressional sobey, but i assume he'll narrow the margin of the house and have a real chance to govern. so it might be in terms of president obama, my normal instinct, we know what to look like in 2013 as president, i am not so sure that is the case.

there could be as white house officials, chief of staff and the like. and governor romney -- i think it's a little more? than i normally would be for an incumbent president. and for governor romney, you know, he's an experienced man and present income is a thin resume for a presidential candidate in the sense that he is a one term governor and in a typical state, where he had no -- almost no supporters in the legislator, didn't run on much of an agenda to change things in massachusetts. took over from republican governors. it is bigotry that was the health care bill, which i guess things like a good idea at the time to hand. so i don't think it's a very comparable situation. the olympics is not comparable. so when a funny way, i would say we've no less -- it's harder to anticipate, for me at least what

the white house administrations will look like, that it would normally be the case that bob dole or john mccain or bill clinton, people are not as a longtime come either senate or governorships. i think one had a sense of how their strength and weight misses. i'm not so sure in either case i know. the question is the campaign. whether we learned from the campaign cannot think about that for a minute and let art because i think that is an interesting question in this case. tonight that's the reason i asked it. >> is a good one. it seems that there is no obvious thing that leaps out that you could say, look at the way romney has run the campaign, therefore he's going to be this kind of president. and romney's plan to lease, is a pretty sharp distinction between campaign and the presidency. romney has the attitude the first president bush had, which is campaigning you unfortunately have to go through to get elected is not a place to really make serious arguments and

really educate the public. it's nice to get comments from a set of sulfur really unsure and willingly. of course they'll think that. it's a funny thing for a candidate to say, but that is what he thinks about campaigning. i don't think critically have to be very serious president. i think electoral politics is another world. i hire these guys and get over the finish line and get about my serious business of governing. it's not a ridiculous point of view, but i do think you maybe can't learn much about how he governed from the campaign. and president obama's case, he is in such campaigning mode now that clearly his view is romney and the republicans and therefore he's going to get his 50.1% by cobbling together various groups and we can neither appeal to or scare enough about the prospect of another republican administration that i'm not sure anything that she is saying is

telling us what he would do in 2013. for a moment, i very much agree with john that it invites a big debate about the future of the country, fundamental choices, foreign policy. we're not getting it and i don't say that necessarily critically. they both do what they have to do. it's a small campaign for a big moment in there for maybe not a revealing campaign forwarded to do president. like an interesting comment about the 50.1. all the politicians like 90%. we once did a survey in 165% job approval rating. is that this is great for 65%. he said now, i want 90. congressman gordon, your thoughts. >> if we were tied back to campaign with the 50.1%, i think that is telling. i was with charlie cook last night. he is one of the political pronounced dictators around here

and charlie famously said sometime back that as president above is reelected it will be despite the economy. if governor one you selected will be despite his campaign. and i think that is playing out right now. i think part of it is this 50.1% attitude. i think the other thing, governor romney icing grew up in a privileged environment, just like i want to give my daughter all he can come his father wanted to do the same period became somewhat isolated with the schools and with an elite sort of thinking along the way. i think also his parents instilled upon him there because of those privileges he had a responsibility and his culture might say, class, had a responsibility to give back and to be a leader. so i think he wants to be

president because it wants to make good decisions. he wants with the circumstances brought before a comic he wants to we organize the government said that it is efficient. but unlike bill clinton, who could tell you 137 things you want us to get done, i don't think governor romney could tell you what he wants to do. he just wants to be a good president. and because of that, you know, he is weaving around out there. the campaign doesn't have a balance. you saw as governor he was a very proficient governor in massachusetts until he sort of started looking presidentially and then he feared over. in the primaries he was very much on the right because he was trying to get that 50.1. and so, i don't say he doesn't have principles. i think she's very much a principled person, but he doesn't have a political philosophy. he doesn't have things he wants

to accomplish. because of that, the campaign is wondering. he is wondering and i think once you get into office, circumstances to take over. you really have to have a focus on what you want to get done. i think that so far has been somewhat of a downfall for governor while me. i think that potentially could carry over to the white house, where if you look at president obama, and again if someone is said to them we don't have to look at the campaign. we've been able to see. he doesn't have 137 by president clinton, but he does have those things he wants to get done that he is passionate about. you will see within him the discipline and they will focus and i think you can see that also reflected in the campaign. so again, discipline folks in the campaign, which is carried over as much as it could be to the election.

a personal discipline, but not a real philosophic base. and so the campaign wonders. so i think that is how you will see potentially carry over. >> governor huntsman, leadership involves not just reading the executive branch, dealing with the legislative branch. i'm romney, what would you expect? bill has told us about his on and off relationship with the massachusetts legislature. what should we expect from the romney administration in terms of relations with congress? and with obama in a second term, would he do things differently? or would you suggest to do in terms of congressional relations? >> my sense of president obama as he would learn or at least be instructed by those around him to learn the mistakes of his first term as it relates doing with congress, which i think is a disaster. easier for members of his own party in capitol hill, want to

do a deal, want want to strike out, went to get things done, we don't have any real engagement on the part of the president. i think if you want bold initiatives through, you know, as was the case of health care commute out of have something to legislature and say take it. you frame it. you frame 80% of it, try to the legislatures they get it done. there's got to be workable for them. is that too, had, but she's got to frame the outcome of 75, 80% in order to drive it home. and that's the president and the executive branch address it on the bully pulpit. so i think there will be probably some rethinking about the legislative strategy if there is a second term. with romney, and i am discussing here that this analytical consultant like approach to dealmaking, let's remember that

governor romney isn't a ceo, wasn't it the io as much as he was a corporate consultant. so i think he is very well schooled in how you get deals done. he's done a lot of deals, done a lot of transactions and i think the transactional mindset or philosophy will probably carry over if he becomes president to his interaction with the legislature and that will be, what do i need to get done? hadaway friend to negotiation or the debate, much like a merger and acquisition discussion. you go in behind closed doors, negotiate an outcome any move on. my sense is he would be more of an engaged, hands-on negotiator because that would be a natural carryover of what he is done in his professional life. my concern is this, i think we are losing some very valuable time and "newsweek" says it now to properly frame the two or

three things that must get done. so just in my own experience as governor, i found you can't have a hundred of them. you never get anything done. but you can frame two or three big things that must get done and then articulate a message consistent with that to the voters, which then put pressure on the legislature members of congress say you are part way home by the election. i think that is where these weeks ahead could be critically important to framing and actually having done some of the negotiation before the election because i do believe that honeymoon period, if there even is one anyone left in politics, probably getting shorter and shorter. so you've got limited time and which is a new president ever elected president to get those one or two things done and they darn well better be articulated and teed up and framed in ways to get you these part way there

by election day. >> is not going to happen. >> i will predict here that the pundits will not be a serious articulation or framing or fundamental choices over the next five weeks. they're both running the campaigns they chosen to run and i don't think it will suddenly change. it's not what i would've recommended as a republican to romney. he'd be better off with a more forward-looking has ever differ from its agenda campaign, but he is running a safe couple astride another referendum on the past four years and also worry about the next four years. it's very striking that romney's campaign slogan for the last five weeks, the next four years will be no better than the last four years. it's very positive. if you elect obama. i happen to believe that's true and that's why i'm not reluctant president obama, but it sounded very forward-looking slogan about what that romie will do.

again, it's hard to blame a guy who wants to get reelected with a pretty narrow casting approach to democratic and independent constituencies to try and scare them about the want them women and all that. the question is am a little less pessimistic that that means they can't govern effectively because i do think reality matters as we've been saying. we will have a cliff and all kinds of ways. the real cliff and 2013 is we can't sustain this deficit for too long. we can't keep printing money and expecting the world to take it. the economy is slow and may be going into another depth. there are foreign policy challenges. i think the next president will have a moment between november 7. i agree, he has to begin in the summer fall of 2013 to do a lot. i would bet contrary to conventional wisdom that would be huge legislative agenda.

i think whatever one wins. i don't buy the gridlock argument. if obama gets reelected, he will have kind of a man they basically have to go with his version of a big deal, which will be bowles/simpson, though left version of bowles/simpson and a little aggressive entitlement reform than people would like. and if romney wins, he'll have a mandate for some version of the wine budget, probably time for a little to get democratic votes. to become president he will have a mandate or something close to that. either way would get a pretty big deal plus the pressure of the debt limit in the other things in markets that they are. i think 2013 becomes a big entitlement reform, tax reform, budget reform moment. it doesn't mean, the sort of gets to john's point, and amazing tidbit and suddenly the

campaign and president obama will have to say to let people voted, guess what, we are going to entitlement reform. and guess what, all that stuff i said about how mitt romney will destroy america, certainly would be something that will look at wildly different from some of the reforms republicans talked about. and of course romney will have the same problem of pivoting. the romney campaign for the romney transition team, led by john's predecessor as governor is working seriously on what they would have to do. the disconnect -- i don't know whether it's good or bad. i don't know how bad it is. the disconnect campaign and government is not something close to an all-time high with me. if you have a conversation with stuart stevens, then how they conversation with mike leavitt, to do for. obama's more complicated and i don't have that many private conversations at the top people, but that would not be that the

slum under. it's a very different conversation than one you would have a chocolate or whoever is really thinking through what obama would actually do in november, december of this year and in the first six months of next year. so i don't think it's impossible. i think that maybe we have to conduct ourselves, to get about the business of governing. i don't buy the argument that partisanship is so bad you couldn't get democratic votes for republican budget or vice versa. i think there will be a certain momentum to do with programs at the reelected president or newly elected president, given the absence of third-party candidates that will be an unusual situation where we haven't had a longtime, the certain kind of mandate. but in any case, it's not going to be -- were not going to get a lot of clues about this over the next five weeks i don't think.

>> which is unfortunate. through the congressman gordon, your thoughts on public relations. speak to this -- >> the partisanship is very bottom will take leadership to get through that. going back to the ambassador's comments about how romney would govern. i completely agree with the dealmaking aspect working with congress. we saw that as governor of massachusetts produced by democrats to the cabinet. he really developed a partnership of the democratic legislature and did a good job there. i think he, personality wise, and everywhere would do well there. i also think he will try to bring efficiency to the executive branch and he'll be a failure at that. bureaucrats feel like they're going to be there longer than you are. the elected officials. and so, they sort of know what they're going to do. maybe you can do a little structural changes. but by and large, it is hard. we have more trouble with his own executive branch i think any

well with the legislative branch. let we disagree a little bit with president obama on his style. in a second term of the president, that's a legacy term. you get focused. he is going to pick out some things he wants to get done and he will get very engaged. i would also disagree somewhat the health care. again, he came in with a platform of crisis coming in now, with everything falling apart. so not even really knowing how bad it was, but what health care, there was something he really felt he wanted to do. i was one of those holdouts on the energy and commerce committee and i was on the health subcommittee day. there was a lot thrown at us really quickly. how does it all fit together? so i wasn't ready really to sign up. there's a few of us like. half a dozen at most.

and i was at the white house a lot in very small groups with the president. he was very engaged, both in the issues and also in the persuasion and trying to bring folks together. and i think you see that, with its this immigration reform, implementation of the health care bill in this next congress. there will be some other areas, where it will be legacy and he will also see him learn from them is dates -- i think george bush the second was much a similar way and that he wanted to read a book, go to bed. he didn't want to fool around with congress. and it didn't work or while early on. towards the end he got very engaged. i'm once again, it was sort of interesting and he may see this with president obama. toward the end, president bush really felt somewhat ostracized from his party. he felt they were letting him

down in the sense that the right wing he could never do enough for them. and he was really frustrated. and for some reason, i was simply bad democrat and i think he felt that i was being shunned by the liberals crowd. i really wasn't. but he just wanted to talk about, how do you deal with the other part of the party not liking which are doing. i think you're going to see, as bill pointed out, the president will step forward and we will have to do some type of reform. he is going to get it just like president bush got it. but i think he will have learned he's got to reach out, just as president bush did in those last few years to congress and i think we'll do a much better job working with them. >> what are the noteworthy aspects of the past four years apartment frustration at how much policy has been turned for the white house? some presidents of these give lip service to their secretaries

obama seems to have gone pretty far the other day. i'm curious and i think an obama term with the continuation of that pattern? and with romney, how do you think he would run things in terms of the relationship between the department and the white house? >> well, i think we've strayed some distance from constitutional government in the sense that the white house staff had been brought up with layers of folks who question the president with the departments and agencies. i compare and contrast has been a low-level staffer under reagan on the advance staff in seeing that the universe of high profile cabinet members who interacted that i can see more directly with the president. we have layers that cushion the president. a deputy chief of staff for policy and whatever the case might be. and i think were drifting further and further away from

that interaction that i think is so important to good government. the president interacting with a cabinet. i don't know that obama is going to change that. that is his operating style. but in fact it was similar to that under bush. i noticed as deputy u.s. trade representative, i don't think he's going to change that part of it. i think it needs to be changed. one of the reasons you can't get good people to sign up or to volunteer or to move towards cabinet level positions. once they look into it, and i've heard this from well-known ceos in the country. when they find well, i'm one of two steps removed from the president be that the congress, i think you know. i'd rather not do that. there's two things going on here. one is an efficiency issue with are more removed as a cabinet from the president like we had today. i think you run the risk of not being able to bring in talent

who want to interact more at the highest levels of government, given where they might be coming from. with governor romney, given his background and his view toward efficient organizations, probably comment, take a look at it, do the metrics come up in the numbers, bringing the bane and mackenzie consultants and tell them what works and what doesn't. >> maybe they will regain some luster after if it jury. >> and then make some decisions they are. he has a huge opportunity, let me just say this, a reform minded president as you would hope governor romney would be if elected, because i'm not sure president obama is interested in this or he would've moved in this direction. so we have a 20th century construct of the 21st century.

if economics is going to drive our foreign policy more and more, just as an example, we have four or five different agencies and departments that are part of the international economic decision-making apparatus and he had to have one. it needs to be streamlined. the commerce department can the ustr come these groups with a little hamper wall and economic -- international economic policymaking. i'm guessing someone like governor romney would step in and say our foreign policy is more of a healthy dose of international economic development or in the way of trade, for example, which i think president obama has dropped the ball on. and we therefore need a structure that allows us to get there i'm as hard as that is to do. one would hope that given the smart analytical folks who may surround themselves with, those used to looking at complex corporate organizations, but

they've actually make some recommendations that would bring her bureaucracy into the 21st century on things as important as international economic decision-making. just to name one. there's many others. but that would be my sensitive. >> when you say that would be good and he would serve a great service to the country. once again, he would probably waste his first four years. you have the proper see how stuff you have to deal with plus a lot of authorizations. when you start changing the pieces are on a table come you got to get congressional approval. for example right now they are trying to move some of noaa. there is a wet noaa and a dry noaa. they are trying to again make some changes there. but bob mccloskey has some facilities in her district. somebody also something

somewhere else. so it is not much of an executive fiat. so as much as needs to be done, it will be difficult to do it that way. you almost have to take the structure that you have. then again, we'll have to be one minded on two or three different issues and you have to bring the cabinet together because much of it is not just one area. is more than one bureau or agency there. you really have to have the cabinet working as a team on two or three issues and driving it down, just driven it right down all in seeing. and you can only do that on just a few issues. >> i don't disagree with that. on a much smaller level, having reorganize government as a governor, when people say can be done. when is the last family to

president actually stand up and say that part of government, i'm going to be organized the following way for the following reason. i've worked for the last four presidents. i can't number-one offender stand number-one offender stand up for clarity at the beginning of an administration is supposed to appointing people saying it's going to look a little different folksingers who were going to do for the following reasons. national security, international -- for competitiveness purposes and in driving the narrative from their come you are going to hit of course the difficulty is mechanically with congress. there's some doubt about that. lustily start the conversation. in addition to me taking care of taxes and budgets and entitlements and all that. you know, if it was a clear, pretty day, that would be again a good task in something of a survey great purpose. but she have to have all hands on deck over this next year dealing with the budget. so it's going to be hard to do that and also tried the other.

>> is it possible to reorganize the federal government or sister lost cause? >> some of it. the authorizing committee is a huge problem of course. i was unfortunate congress legislates and preserves its perks for because they have to do something in the sense of you don't get credit for passing the legislative -- they don't reauthorize, which is what they were once supposed to do. what authorizing committees now do is protect particular of departments they basically control of particular programs they have authorized 20 years ago and whatever. i've been a little shocked and not. when i came to washington in 85 and became chief of staff. they give a little questionable really to get too much into the administrative side of the department's activities. a cumbersome issues of proper employment. a lot of these competitive grant programs, et cetera.

congress is now just blithely. you see this and all the letters they get rebuilt them to her congressman and senators, feel they have the right to tell the agencies what to do on programs that they have supervision over his nonfamily to efficient and sensible sensible administration contends equitable administration. but fixing that is a big deal. i would say on the romney cited to think what they are thinking and i don't disagree with what they're thinking is we have a huge agenda in 2013. we probably only have six, nine months to do it. november 7, september 30th the octave. probably really obvious when you got to pastor huge budget reconciliation bill, which will include tax reform, entitlement reform. certainly entitlement reform, somehow budget reform and obamacare from the wind and replacing large chunks of it and paying for it. so all that has to happen very

fast. they cannot do that for normal cabinet processes. so they are going to have an extremely strong white house on the interest rate for the six, nine-month agenda. the right way to think about it is there always be to run administrations. there's november 72 number 30, 2013, which is dealing with the immediate issues that got to do it. and that is very much mike leavitt as white house chief of staff, budget director paul ryan, vice president who knows a heck of a lot about this and whoever is the treasury secretary, meeting twice a day of address in the white house with senior white house staff and maybe the hhs secretary gets in those meetings after all health care is a big part of it and everyone else is getting them confirmed in getting to know the authorizing committees on the hill. and then i would hope they would move to more of a modernizing

government and a whole bunch of other things that can be done, which really needs to be improved with an execution administration point of view. my sense is the romney people and i think they are very focused on the first six, nine months. if you want to do that, you need an extremely strong white house. if i were advising romney, with a unit by state people. but the malta white house. after a year, there'd be cabinet secretaries. but they need the experience for people to really make that decision early and work with congress. how does it get a couple people who have served or are familiar with congress when that process because it's obvious you can't just dictate to congress and they're going to need to make this stuff happen very fast. >> are you advocating czars? >> just a very strong white house chief of staff, very strong budget year.

>> jim baker and the white house knew what they were doing with the legislative affairs office in really it was impressive what they did when they looked back on it. even those are pretty strong speaker. being able to get that stuff through. we look at history in retrospect. he was inevitably going to get all that stuff through. the fact that he did it was pretty startling and be worth looking at those about the model i suppose. >> governor romney will have to difficulty adjusting changed administration. and you know, the confirmation process that was awful. and so, you probably will have to have whatever the new term for czars are, that are in the administration trying to cobble together the jurisdiction of various agencies to push whatever needs to be done.

>> okay, i would like to involve our audience here. if you have a question, raise your hand. so we have a microphone over here if you could take it over here. if you can give us your name and your organization. we would ask you to keep your questions brief so we can questions brief so we can get through as many people as possible. yes, sir. >> there was al gore's reinventing government, but really when it comes down to it, no matter who is elected, the president at that time should come up and say, look, we can't do with democrats or we can't do it with republicans. we have to get a bipartisan solution to this. the next president has to get the leaders of the congress. and it also would be better to have governors, state governors come in and say look, we are in a crisis here. we need to get something done. forget your party, let's get it done. >> i think that is what all americans would like to see, but

the model for congress and i say congress and the house or senate, if you want to go from minority to majority, the model has been were established. if you're the minority try to stop the majority from getting anything done. even if you're halfway up for it. and so, again, as chairman of the science and technology committee, not nearly as difficult obviously. but we passed 151 bills and resolutions in those four years. all were bipartisan. and so, i found it is the responsibility of the majority, whether majority in the house, senate, wherever you are, it's the responsibility of the majority to reach out to the minority. and sometime you have to go, you know, when mitch mcconnell says his job is to see you beaten, it's a little tough. he may have to go to lamar alexander or somebody else. but whether the majority in the house, majority in the senate and whichever party is the

president, they have to really reach out. they have to stoop over and then maybe you can get a little cooperation. >> i would say there are two models for how to do this and i don't have a view for which would be better in 2013. when is the leadership model, which is andrews air force base in 1890, president bush and dick durbin making a deal with democratic leaders of the house and senate pr gingrich, the legislation. bush 01 i was say on the tax bill to go pickoff 10 democratic senators are house members if you are republican president or vice versa. and i think it would be an interesting question for romney. does he think he has to sit down with harry reid? or to get to sit with mark warner another senate. and i think the same for president obama.

i think republicans have a say are underestimating how strong obama would be if he is reelected. and i don't believe boehner can hold up is the 15th of march. i don't think he can hold all the republicans. they are stronger than it used to be. a figure of more leverage present because of campaign finance issues and other things, but having said that, obama going to the senate and there are some equivalents in the house. even if the democrats don't control all of congress, you would have leverage to go around leadership. in the case of boehner, suspect he would mind. he will feel he is obliged to cut a deal with a bomb and 2013 if romney has lost. but i think people say bipartisanship come up with various leadership negotiation. the other is picking off the members against the wishes of leadership. >> the premise of both of those

is there has to be personal relationships. the ambassador pointed out well that governor romney will have those talents. president obama knows he has them. you just going out to not not demonstrate them and be more engaged. >> and so, the reality is this spirit we are a few short weeks away from the real work starting. i think bill had it right on and i totally agree. i think there will be a moment of clarity. we will all wake up the next morning and some will be happy, some will be sad. and then the expectations will be there. we got to move. people will think differently about this interregnum between november and january because the fiscal cliff in the reality of a downgrade, and s&p downgraded the impact on the markets is very real. it is a good thing and i believe

that appeared to be a productive period, maybe more so than people might imagine today. uber is another good point about governors and having been won. here's what the next president has been up to 92 due having been share of the western governors association, just to highlight this point. i don't remember time in recent history where a president has actually used the governors effectively to drive policy. if ever there was a truly bipartisan group, people actually do stuff i have to go back and report to their constituents or else you don't get reelected. it is a can-do problem-solving body and to have a president: the 50 governors early on and say, republicans, democrats alike, we are all in this together. with that appeared during the important 10 month stretch at. here's what i'm going to be focused on. i know some of you might

disagree, but hang with me here. as for you, i need some help on things like energy policy because that is hugely important and i want you to drive it because so much of it has to do with our public lands in the attitudes locally will help me help you in making this a reality. i think engaging, harnessing and asking for the health of the nation's governors. so typically meet with the president once or twice a year and you get briefings as opposed to the president saying, i need your help. please go out and do this. i need help on health care 2014 is around the corner. i need some help on energy policy. let's help to fill in the gaps and make it a national effort if you will. i think there's huge untapped potential in that area that could speak to bipartisanship. >> i think the biggest policy achievement might have been

welfare reform. and that was done by clinton who was congressionally accepted. on the republican side a couple of democratic governors. so i think you could imagine, certainly if you have serious health care reform, the republican version of health care reform includes medicaid back to the states. you need to have a serious and truthfully than obamacare will depend on this day. you need to have a serious conversation with governors to understand those issues. >> to that end, they would at least instinctively understand how to harness them and how to energize them going forward. >> okay, other questions. right there in the aisle as the microphone coming out. >> governor huntsman, i am with wing tank.

you stated the president has an opportunity to set a framework, so congress has been addressed a lot and things like filibuster reform or the inability for congress to push major reforms or bills. will romney be more successful or as a new congress, do they have an opportunity -- does that happen internally or with the new president said that vision? >> i think this is where the executive branch has enormous power to set the agenda and framing issues. my only comment here would be to simplify, simplify, simplify. when you are an executive position like a governor, which i assume is much like the presidency. bill has been very close to this. you have to simplify your list of things are taking before the american people because your

ability to get things done is pretty limited and you have to be realistic about that, which is achievable. so with the next president, i think framing the two or three months have items as opposed to wandering off. i used to talk about reform and all that could eventually we have to have serious conversations about broader reform efforts. i do believe the next 10 month will require a very precise delineation of the two or three things that are the must haves and will probably be around tax reform and spending. and if you could throw in some dinner on energy policy. we can get through the next year. tax reform along the lines of some bowles/simpson deal, lower the rate, broadening the base. a target on spending over the next 10 years, something between the rhine plan. you know where it's likely to end up.

annan has natural gas will probably be the most powerful boon to our nation's bottom line than we've seen in probably two decades. they could very well establish a review of our manufacturing muscle in this country and what expectations are to be going forward. i think it's going to be hugely consequential economically. it's just an example of three things that could be outlined without wandering off into other reform areas. nice to talk about, but probably not realistic given the reality of the political constraints over the next many months. >> all three of those can be done with one bill. >> just thinking about this, too, we all tend to project we can pass an imac could be misleading. if we sat and 2002, 10 years ago, we would say there's been a heckuva lot of legislation. a lot of it is legislation in

the lot with a partisan support. reagan 81 but the initial budget. reagan 86 tax reform commission that bipartisan. there's bush 90, the budget deal, but nonetheless passes bipartisan support and then bush 91, the americans with disabilities act and some other legislation, environmental legislation as well, which are 90 or 91 i would get under clinton after some partisan primary-care welfare reform and 96 and a pretty big budget deal and 97. bush and no one is both attacks though some democratic support and no child left behind. so i think you think we have 20 years, where there's fighting, but every three, four, five years is a legislative achievement. i think to some degree a note to become the discipling and maybe

it was just life that became very partisan as it started to dominate. the tax i became extremely partisan after grocery in whatever reason bush didn't have any bipartisan legislation, you try to be fair a little bit, certainly on immigration. they fell apart because i do think it is fair whatever bush or mccain say, habitat a good game, we are willing to give republicans a victory for legislative achievement on immigration. and 06, 07, obama comes in. i know people say that, wanted to beat him and the republicans are right wing. they were sewed to moralize. bulimia was there in february 09. zamora fearful legislation i still do not understand and maybe you can explain why he went the way he did, but they were the partisan stimulus bill and in my view what with health care instead of where they put the republicans. he couldn't have gotten a ton of republican votes on that time in

the highest financial crisis and republicans are going to fall. it would have been ludicrous. i would've supported that in early 09. inside, they stupidly did a bipartisan bill and indeed made you guys vote in the house on cap-and-trade. it was really nuts in my opinion. i do support a version of doc franken at the huge problem, therefore repealing dodd-frank. i think it is just a too big to fail, you know, corporate crony capitalism kind of legislation. the republicans have a problem not explain what they were doing that. that will be something romney has to address when he takes over. but for whatever reason, whoever is to blame, the obama administration that very partisan by nato nine. then in 2011, yet another chance for bowles/simpson and we can

squabble about what obama should have done, whether they do with boehner could have happened, but it didn't. but i would be wary of generalizing from the last 10 years, just that would've made a mistake and go to to say the preceding 20 years would've been the model. and i do think the system is so broken or so partisan that one couldn't have more like what we had. this is a topic of this panel because the presidential leadership with presidential leadership and real practical leadership as well as rhetorical will be very, very important. there's a bunch of issues. you could do immigration reform in 2013. i don't think it's a huge substantive disagreement about that. you can get 75% of those, 280 houseboats for the right piece of legislation. but is anyone going to step up

and do not? you can imagine 2013 a lot of these issues seem totally intact to pull. but those require skillful presidential leadership. >> right here in the aisle with a question. >> yes, good morning. you know, o'connor retired foreign service officer. getting back to the said jay today, which is why presidential campaigns reveal about leadership. and the past several, governor romney has advocated repealing the affordable care at, repealing or revoking the dream act in keeping precedent. my question then is, you've all suggested that either way deals will have to be struck on november 7th. asked to governor romney, hasn't

his leadership skill been primarily one of lack of transparency and consistency? >> i mean, i'll defend governor romney here. since i've been fairly critical of him. the two issues you cite are perfectly reasonable. i'm forgetting but if obamacare and i am for having preexisting conditions and other such things, which is a romney is trying to say rather an artfully. on the on the dream act, in favor of review portion of the dream act and against the obama version. that is not a ridiculous intellectual position. it is a parody to market a little bit, but i don't think it's a ridiculous position romney is taking. people say that to be for the aca orca install health care reform. that's not really reasonable. romney has a real chance to govern with the center-right agenda and obama will have to come to the center if he wants to govern.

>> back in the corner there's a question. >> sabrina siddiqui with the "huffington post." the last couple of weeks in particular have been very difficult for governor romney and his campaign. they've announced a couple of restarts or reboot says they've called them. where do you think his campaign has been missing the mark and what do you think he needs to come out and do where do you think his campaign has been missing the mark and what do you think he needs to come out and do in the first presidential debate in the remaining missing the mark and what do you think he needs to come out and do in the first presidential debate and the remaining five weeks? >> so i ran for president and failed miserably. i'm in no position to opine on this one. that is for darn sure. i am not much of a political analyst anyway. but let me just draw from a little bit of experience and say

that, you know, it helps when you look into the camera and you speak from the heart in ways that allow the voters to feel this. he and the commitment to the issues around jobs and economic growth, which i think must happen before anything else. so is there an opportunity tonight to do that very thing? so, the listeners in the audience, they hear the words in that process the data. we all do that. but we also feel some day when our candidates speak to us. you know what i mean? and it's all part of the process of winning those. you have to speak the words to make sense from a policy standpoint and you have to move people with emotion. as bill clinton did when he spoke at the democratic convention and i thought after that was, where is their bill

clinton and the republican party? i thought marco rubio did a pretty good job. but here, bill clinton disaggregated some complicated issues, simplified them, delivered them into the living room of every voter and had an intelligent conversation. that is what voters want. they want a sincere, intelligent conversation. no bs, no fluff, no hyperbole. just give me the scoop and tell me where you think you can take us. and that is where i think there is an opportunity still in the weeks remaining. and i believe that governor romney has that capacity to deliver that kind of level of sincerity and direction. >> i want to quickly address that. the republicans had a candidate doing that in the primary. unfortunately candidate was addressing the general primary electorate. that's different. but if you look at the ad for

governor romney's problems, think it goes back to numbers. the first was brought up today at 50.1% in the sense that he's trying to do what is necessary to get elected. so there is some of that lack of sincerity. .. and talk about what -- [inaudible] and then you have to make some

structure changes. they brought a very poor mechanicble campaign. they have to get to the battleground states and get -- have been critical and remain critical. ly say analytically looking a the numbers today, it's been a terrible two weeks. they made mistakes. 47%. where are the actual poll numbers. they are not worse than they were. they are worse than they were two weeks ago. they were slightly worse. you have the "the wall street journal" out this morning. all the battle ground and likely voters around -- if i were ak l rod i would be worried, actually. just as mitt romney should have been ahead in any view, two months and blew the republican convention, i wonder whether the

obama campaign will look back at the last two weeks where they had a change to pull ahead and decide to get romney in ways that repeat problems and reintegrate he had problems. and most close the sale and now we are going in to the gait in the three-point race -- structure president obama is part of the romney analysis he mains a weak incumbent running for election. he's not quite bush if you look at number in you're. i wonder if they could have done more. everybody keeps saying romney. romney should do this lay out the agenda. i suspected the democrats have been solid in the support of barack obama, i would say, maybe a little less critical at least in public. it i were a democrat who wished him well i thought maybe he should be doing a little more to lie out a positive agenda. i think he's at some risk now of

looking like an incumbent who is coast to victory, perhaps by discrediting his 0 font 51% lek rate. it might work. one will be able to discredit the other one. -- two me two weeks ago what would have happened? i would have thought the numbers would be worse for romney. >> okay. up here in the front row. we have a question. there's a microphone coming over to you. give us your name and organization. >> stefanie with the financial times. i'm curious about what you prededucted dynamic the would be between governor romney elected between him and paul ryan and the vice president and dealing with the house and obviously you'd to deal with harry reid he's the majority leader or the minority not having the filibuster proof senate. what does it look like. from what i'm hearing, on the

house side, it doesn't seem like there are any predictions things are going to change. too many people will be willing to comprise. from a tea party too that the globe has to prove the conservative credential even fee he is the one to defeat president obama. >> i don't know. assume romney wins with we assume the republican will take the house probably won't lose many house seats. i believe he has a -- [inaudible] with the tps complaining and this and that. but some people if he doesn't do a, b, oc i think pee has the ability to pass the rebelling silluation bill with the this house with very on the republican side. he has to decide how much he wants to try to get democratic votes and willing to adjust do what brawfm was willing to do in '09 and take it to the house.

i think he's in food shape in the senate too with the reconciliation. i just don't boy. republicans who think john byneer is reelected president with the clear agenda in terms of taxes and especially the -- the idea that baseball is gold republicans against that in the spring of 2013 i don't boy that. it i certainly don't think that harry reed can hold him if he that will be a want to comprise and want 70 vote for the reconciliation vote or do with it 52 or 55. there's practical questions there. i guess i don't is still the leader if they don't have the senate. [inaudible]

i tend to be of the view either one if he wins will have a strong hand. the crisis will make him stronger. the fact that the market will be saying we need see progress on the retitle element reform. and the business community will saying we need to see the corporate income tax is crazy. this is obvious things that has to happen. i think everything expiring in december 31st. i think the president will be a strong position to shape the agenda in either chevre man is president. and i would say really in either body including the senate. i think we have a little bit there's been i think we're overdoing how much the mitch mcconnell or harry reed is going to stop a newly elected president on the re-elected

president on the core part of the agenda if he you focus on 2013. >> i'll make a prediction here. in all likelihood, president obama will be re-elected. it he is re-elected there's a god likelihood that the senate will narrowly stay democratic. and it's almost certain that the house will stay in with the republican majority. these are -- used to we knew at the end of the day that the last hour, you know, adults would get together and even would give some and we worked out. it is nervous now. these are big stakes after the election, i think you're going see the business community come in hard saying, you know, you have to step up. republicans you have to make some comprises. democrats, you know, if you want jobs the hell with it they are going to go away if you don't it to disco it.

we are going to do taxes, you know, budget. everything is going to be in the one bill. i think that you're going to see john boehner he is an adult. there is no question about it. he knows what needs to be done. i think if necessary he will sacrifice being re-elected the speaker next time around to do the right thing. i think he and the president can get together and president will give entitlements out. boehner will give on taxes in the sense that will come down. there, enough left over from doing away with the loopholes. and this in the senate is where it has to start. you have to see outside the top of your come together with a framework. now they can't, you know, they can put the framework together you can't initiate it has to be

initiated in the house. i think that will be the framework. again whatever you want to say kind of thing folks can rally around. you have to set a framework within the lame duck session. you can't got end of the year. it start to smell. but take some time to be able to get it right. so you to do corporate and personal taxes together. you can't do one without the other. there's too much interlocking there. it will take awhile to go through it. whether it's fourth of july or the august recess, it has to be a deadline like that. now i'm an optimist i think it will come about. it is fragile and somebody can get their nose out of wack. i think again that the adults will step forward. and at the risk of alienating

some of their own party. >> a question for the web cast add yen. >> yes, i have a question from abby huntsman. >> when are you going to be home? >> she can be tough. >> dad, or governor, what will needs to happen to the g.o.p. if romney loses i guess for the whole panel. she did say dad. [laughter] >> what happens to the g.o.p. if romney loses? oh boy. i'm glad my daughter through me a softball. [laughter] and the one that will keep me out of trouble, no doubt. there will be all the predictable finger pointing and the blame game. that will sort i.t. out as is the case at the end of any losing campaign. and the party will wander for

awhile it may be a little bit like yugoslavia at the end of communism where you have -- [laughter] several entities that kind fall out of one. and they have no real direction governance or leadership and takes awhile to sort that out. and i don't know what that means longer term when you look at the viability of the party, i think we're going to have come around and recognize we have to stay relevant, you have to stay consistent with demographic changes if you're going to be a viable party, you have to be consistent with your found, principles and by founding principles, you know, i look to lincoln's leadership. i look to teddy roosevelt leadership, reagan leadership. we for forget the party wasn't created five years ago.

it has the i had i are going back to the first president who was the republican. abraham lincoln. lincoln did okay. we have everything from the importance of individual dig any our political discourse to an articulation of the humidity we're passing down to the next generation and stated by though door roosevelt to the importance of the infrastructure system as discussed by eisenhower to a bold president like reagan who was willing to sit down with the evil empire to engage in direct negotiation. we're drawing from a long history of, i think real important achievement for the country. at some point as republicans we are going to do have a discussion about what republicanism is today in the 21st century while drawing from the roots and recognizing that

we have to keep pace with changing demographic. that's a realty. companies go broke if they lose their customer base. they will go out of business and southeast to exist. we're to have a heart and soil. a party just can't be a holding company for fundraisers and convention every four years. we have to have a heart and soul. you have to project a vision and principles people hear and consents are real and consistent with our time and place in history. we're not there yet. that's where we're going to be over time. >> i like the headline. the g.o.p. is like the yugoslavia at the end of communism. >> there will be a ton of finger pointing which we will cheerfully participate in. already working on the articles. [laughter] >> but i think one thing i would add to what he said is there is a existing republican party in

the country and there are more importantly there are real existing republican governors. and it's not as if, you know, they go away. so bob medicare donald is governing new jersey. both in terms of actuality policy and in terms of politics but they become a model how you

succeed in govern as reform conservative including in many states they will by definition will be governorring in many states month will have lost. nevada, new mexico, and new jersey, maybe virginia, of course, maybe oh. i think they become central and i think it will be hard for us in washington to sort of remind ourselves they are more important than what happens in the leadership in the house and the senate. one tiny caf yet i wrote it a couple of weeks ago. everyone assumes the republicans will hold the house. of course. i'm not certain about that. i think -- my only lek trail campaign point i would make it's a guess and analytical guess. i think people are underestimating the variance of outcomes that can still happen. i don't buy the argument we are locked in a 51-48 race either way. i think it can be a seven-point victory. i'm not sure romney can't break it open. if he gets a 53-47 if it's

possible. entomb ahead by three or four points. he could win by six, it's not out of the question. i'm not sure republicans hold the house. i know, the republicans are wouldly confident. the democrats don't think they can take it back. if you do the math you lose the house, and i think you could have more turmoil, that would be big, i think that would lead to the melt down if republicans lose a body everyone is assuming -- get the house. pretty successfully. >> as an outsider let me agree or disagree. of course, it's there's going the finger pointing. so you to go through that. they'll get through that. at the end of the day the house is going to stay in the republican hands. whether the republicans have a majority or not in the senate,

they still have a filibuster rule. there's not gong going to be an epiphany moment. we will rethink everything. they go through a period part of we lost we because we weren't conservative enough. we didn't go to the base. there will be some who say we lost because we department do go to -- that's going to go on and on. and until i think the tea party effect will ealing aerolittle bit longer. but the tea party is not the individual members that reelected that are so called tea party. it is the fear the tea party has struck to moderate republicans about the primaries. that is going to stop them from having that really god conversation. it department get wiped out. it won't be epiphany time. they let the tea party thing get further out before adults can

have a good conversation. and then certainly hispanic, asian, all they have to talk about all that. but it's a little bit out. the good news for republicans republicans is we're going doing the same thing. we'll be arguing along with democrats. we would have done better if we would have gotten majority senate if pee would have been more liberal or more -- so the democrats will have some of the same sort of thing. so unfortunately i think you're going to see everything sort of pushed along the same for awhile and then it's going have to be some real thinking in both parties. >> i don't agree with that. i think -- i think you underestimate how much republicans assume it was the republican president i think losing two in a row is a blow. [inaudible] in political parties about their i think it would be healthy in

some republican some issues related to hispanic and other issues. i'm more protea party. i think there will be -- where the party goes. i think -- it's not to take back the senate and lose the. the st. i in after 2010, and only and, you know, . >> does intimidate members as much as you say. >> what you talking about? >> how many members were defeated by tea party challenge. >> how many members would change the way they would vote their life because they didn't want a tea party in the primary. >> i think after the year it's going to be harder to tell the

republican member. they want 82 out of 85 republican house members. >> they said climate change is not real whether they believe it or not that, i mean, i won't go on to other things. we the, you know. so you to have an yesterday's discussion right here. >> that was one more year. >> let's talk about the reality after the election and going forward because i think what bill mentioned about the catastrophe that would be a republican loss in the implication for the party but driving this whole conversation in the years ahead will be two things. one, the reality that is fast growing party in america is the unaffiliated party. even many my own red state of utah is the affiliated party. you extrapolate out the deepgraphic in a few years, the implications are norms. and if you couple that with technology trends, so i would

argue that no party has harned effectively the internet. we're scratching around the surface. but that is going to provide a platform for delivering messages, organize, fundraising with doing all the thing that the traditional parties do. when you couple demographic changes and party affiliate with technology and how it continues to and change the political dynamic. i don't think we can adequately predict where the thing is going over the next few years, i think we're in for some unexpected surprises and shocks to the party's status quo in the years to come. i don't think question predict what it's like. the whole discussion of tea party stuff or occupy wall street and the years to come will be history. and we'll be looking a the horizon that looks so different from today. i adopt think we can even forecast what that might be. >> one point i would say i would have to agree with that.

i don't -- for the tea party are something like that. i would say you a historian and you looked a the 2012, you would have expected a third party candidate. and of course there are certificates to make it happen. the truth is historically if you have a bad recession and first difficult war and apparently failed presidency and fake over with great hopes hopes for change which allowed some degree in 2010 it was a classic scenario. we should have a par row 92 moment. it should have been some sentiment we should have a primary challenge you didn't for various reasons and you -- you didn't. i wondered if if that's something structure. if we're not going have it the way we had it so many times in the past. is it an accident of history, obama happened to be in the position -- [inaudible] in the cabinet.

first african-american president to the left the could challenge him. it should are with been more like bush. >> structured. all structured bloomberg would have won in a minute. if he thought he would have won he looked at process -- [inaudible] but getting on the ballot was done. >> elected that. i think america has a wrong understanding the right kind of third party candidate. they upscale socially respect the john huntsman-type candidate. or on the left a version of that. and that's not good for the country in my opinion. i wouldn't vote for a person analytically there's obviously sentiment. if we have failure over the next or two to come together and pass serious reforms i think my hunch is john's right the degree of tier mile and the unexpected development third and fourth party split with both parties. [inaudible]

if he does go to the center he will have a problem on the left. going forward you don't have to challenge obama. you look at 2016 candidacy. i agree with republicans. they are different than the republican party. a lot of cross cutting in a way -- [inaudible] more to the center or the right. she's conservative but also was the governor he was a critic of wall street. everyone laughed at him within the republican party for being a guy who said i think the housing bubble is understandable. i think there's a big financial crisis and we need to be a more populous party. i think there's a lot of [inaudible] and scenario i had earlier which is a successful legislative agenda in 2013 doesn't happen and if some of the crisis either abroad or home spin out of control. >> where ises are when we need

him? >>s are . >> that's a good question. he got 19 million votes vote 1992 and was ahead in the polls. more important than the numbers he drove home an intelligent discussion about debt. and so what happened between '92 and '96 people got busy staring down the debt. what didn't he have? he spent i don't know $15 million on it. i think he got in a handful of state ballotses. can you imagine what teddies roosevelt would have done in 1912 when he left the convention in chicago that summer, you know, upset at william howard after it. if he had been on the ballot in every state or at the internet. think about '92 and ross if he had been on the every state ballot which is the big change bill, this last election psych wl the americans whoever the moment was able they able to

crack the code on getting state bat ballot. that's never been done before. that's the hurled up to the point. no one has been able to get on the state ballot because the barriers of entry has been onerous. it's a big achievement of the last election sickle a movement that county have a candidate. they cracked the code on et getting on the state ballot which will be here from now going forward. i think that creating a whole new dynamic in hows it plays out. >> that will be the benediction. i want to thank you for your invigorating discussion. thank you very much. [applause] [applause] see the only vermont issue debate next thursday october 11th. online at c-span.org. watch and engage. coming up next here on c-span2,

a look at the reasoning behind why some people vote. after that we take a look at the impact of the youth vote in the 2012 presidential election. that's followed by a discussion on campaign financing and the effect of super pacs on the year's elections. thursday one day after the presidential debate. they are back on the campaign trail. president obama will hold a campaign rally in denver. we'll will live starting at 2190 eastern. we join mitt romney and running mate paul ryan for a campaign rally at agusto in virginia. that's live at 6:45 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> americans are not the only people to have a sort of september 11th in the national story. in chilly there was a september

11th event that had a dramatic impact on chilean history and memory. on that day in 1973 military offices from the chilean army and their units staged a full scale assault on their own country. they took over radio stations, police stations, and other centers of power. chile was dead. these events on september 11th began a reign of terror lead by an army general named agusto. his regime remained in power for 17 years and was responsible for torture, murder, and repression. and what most chileans did not

know in 1973 in what many americans still do not know that was the cue of september 11th 1973 was the work of intelligence operatives. american intelligence operatives they took their orders directly from the white house. >> this weekend on lectures in history rib with the cia and cold war regime change saturday night at 8:00 eastern and sundayed at 1:00 on c-span 3 american history tv. >> i have all the challenges, house, senate, plus author and book review speeches. those kinds of things. if i know a bill is coming up on the floor in the house, i watch, you know, which channel toit see. i have them all. if there is either a speech i know that you have covered, or a book review or so on, i'm going watch that.

when i want to find out something, that has some value to it that's going to be one of the first places i look. i mean, i'm obviously a public broadcasting fan. i watch the channels. out of what a couple of hundred channels i probably have five to ten at the most that is going to go to. it's going include all the c span channels. david watches c-span on direct tv. c-span, created by america's cable companies in 1979. brought to you as a public service by your television provider. next a discussion on the reasons people vote with katherine mangu-ward managing editor and magazine from washington journal this is 35 minutes. katherine mangu-ward this is part of our regular spotlight on magazines segment. her piece is from "your vote

doesn't count" here's the cover. it's part of the spotlight on magazine. we take a look at the piece in the news and get at the heart of it. katherine mangu-ward, does your vote count? >> this piece is near and deer to my heart. i'm not a voter. i spend an awful lot of time at dinner parties and social gatherings fighting this out with people. i thought it would be a good idea to dmiment to paper and make the case why most people should stay home on election day. >> if you would like to join the conversation here are the phone numbers you call you say the case for voting relies on factual errors, misunderstandsn't about the duty citizenship and overinflated perception of self-worth. >> guest: no offense to your

reader our voters. and i adopt to start out by being clear. it's not an article why democracy is a bad idea or why it's, you know, not good to live in a place in a society in a country where people vote. i love living in a place where people vote. i love living in a place where our leaders are chosen by election. that's not the same thing as my vote mattering. that's kind of the case i want to make in the piece. that the people have even very smart people have kind of misconceptions about their chances of influence the outcome of an election and the sort of moral or ethical or civic duty to vote and what it looks like. >> host: you go through some of the reasons you say people choose to vote, and take them apart and talk about why you don't think they work. you write that voting is widely thought to be one of the most important things a person can do. but the reason they vote reasons they give for are flawed,

unconvinced and sometimes even dangerous. get to the idea of every vote counting. if i don't vote, what's to say my neighbors won't vote there's a domino effect. my vote does count. >> guest: this is, you know, a very heart of the argument. it's just basic math which is elections particularly presidential elections which is obviously what's on everyone's mind right now are decided by huge margins and even when you take the example that very often comes up in the conversations, which is florida in 2000, those that margin there was still a couple of hundred votes depending on whose count you go with. each person only has one. so this idea that what if you lived in florida brow ward county in 2000 shouldn't you have voted then. the answer is still you would not have influenced the outcome of an election inspect is a fundamental idea that, you know, one vote will not sway the

outcome of an election. and that, you know, doing something like writing an arm in a magazine and coming on c-span and talking about it is probably not going to make a significant dent out of the tens of millions of people that vote. >> host: are there arguments you look at voting in the future. voting is civic duty. take those apart for us. >> guest: there's a wonderful newish book out by jason brennon called the "ethics of voting" he make is the argument you may have a doubt not to vote. we have a civic to be engaged and participate in good, you know, doing our part for good governance making our society work. but then voting is actually not a particularly good way to perform that couth and that in fact, in addition to the fact that people sort of think, i dangered my duty. i'm done. that's all i need to go for the next four years, that people who continue know very much. people who are voting based on who they would like to have a

beer with or whose hair say that like or wife they like. those people are actually probably doing something that is condemnable. that's wrong. you shouldn't vote if your vote is based on a misunderstanding or ignorance. >> jim in louisville kentucky is the first caller. >> caller: hello. gm. i wanted to make comment i'm a moderate republican who is party left him and i feel like my vote is worthless. due to the way the system works. if you take the state of kentucky, it's the electorial system is there all or nothing. so if it were to be 40% for the loser, the losing candidates doesn't get receipt credit for the votes. i would suggest that for national elections like the presidency, that somehow each state be required to use a

proportional system and that way the vote seems to mean something more and in addition, it would allow that less runoffs would be required. >> host: >> guest: there are lot of great reasons to entertain reformatting our system. the electorial college is a weird art fact in another time. winner take all have a distorting effect how candidate campaign. you get to one point which i want to highlight which is you often see on bumper sticker. don't vote it encourages the politicians. and i think there is something to that. if you think the system is generally broken or corrupt or you think the choices between two candidate aren't very good. they're not going to make a significant difference in the future of the country one way or the other, that's a good reason

not to vote. jason brennon in the book the ethics of voting calls is the clean hands principle. if you think the system isn't great, one way to signal that is to just not participate and not only send a signal it has a positive moral value for you. you feel like you have done the right thing. and so if that's the case in your state, i think that's a perfectly god reason not vote. > host: the electorial college map showing which gained or lost votes. those in blue have gained. rest remained unchange. greg in virginia. >> caller: hi. [inaudible] how are you today? my depend is not just your article the message you try to put across. indian what you're saying that, you know, the lesser of two evils thing maybe you don't vote for any. i have it to tell you i think

it's a bad message to send to especially younger people we should not vote. let me tell you why. i realize there's a lot of problem with the way the system works. the elected territorial college and such. but if you don't have your fishing line in the water, you're never going to catch a fish. if you don't vote at all it doesn't matter. i think it's important for people to definitely vote especially the younger kids one of the problem is like you say there's a lot of ignorance a lot of people are not aware what the candidates substantiate for and they're vote forking the beer that person and that's bad. i grow. i think we need to focussen the earth on getting people educate order exactly you know what the candidates do stand for. where they're going take the country, and also our effort should be focused on getting the money out of election. and in presidential election, i tend to agree with the premise miss that the vote doesn't matter that. fairly true. but more importantly than the

presidential election is the congressional election. and even the local, you know, the state assembly and legislative bodies each individual state and counties, these are the people that really affect our daily lives in a big way as we know all, the president only has a certain amount of power. congress has the real power. and those places where it's extremely important to vote and vote the bums out. thank you. >> guest: so in my article, i actually look at the study that was done and it was i think it was 2000 not only a presidential race races that house races throughout all of american history. it's a comprehensive study. what they found was that there was one race in all of american history that was probably actual decided by one vote. was in buffalo in 1910. >> host: congressional representation is absolutely important in congress is powerful.

you're right about that. but that is still not a good reason to vote. inyour impulse is common. it it's understandable. we want people to be invested in the enterprise of america. we want people to expend some effort and possibly money. misa day of work, whatever it is. to kind of show that like we're in it together and show, you know, that evening wearing your i voted sticker. it's a good way for us to be able to quickly judge other people. that said, the actual acted of voting is not the best way to do that. i think you are right we should be civically engaged. i think you are right that voter education is valuable in fact far more valuable than get out the vote push and i think those two things often get confused. get out the vote push that is aimed at 18-year-old has i think the unfortunate consequence of really lowering the quality of

the voting pool. young people tend to be nor ignorant in their votes. they tend to know less about the candidates and make their decision on less information. so by shuffling 18-year-olds in to the ballot box we are encouraging people who don't know what they're doing to do something that mostly not going to influence the outcome but is going put them in a position think they're making the decision in a way that i think is inappropriate. >> host: the next caller is mary a democrat joining us from st. louis, missouri. this morning. hi. >> caller: good morning. how are you? >> host: good. go ahead. >> caller: i don't agree with her. i and i don't, you know, because like the ore caller said it's asking someone the other vote -- it is aiming to the teenagers that don't want to vote because they feel like their votes don't count. but the votes do count. i have a 18-year-old and i have taken him for the poll and he's

18. he loved to vote. you know what i'm saying? it's wrong for her to say that your vote does not count. that's the reason why people choose to vote or not to vote. >> host: thanks. >> guest: again i think it's great your taking your 18-year-old to see how the process works. it's absolutely valuable. at the same time, you actually you raise a point that i would like to highlight from the piece there is a good reason to vote, and that's there's a 1993 book by lauren and jeffrey brennon no relation to jason brennon which is the book on this. they say listen, one reason you might vote is as it impressive measure. it's fun. election they is kind of cool. you got poll, you get to see everybody there. you see people with the kids,

grandmother, it's great. that's cool. voting is fun, you should totally go vote, have a great time. i think you do 18-year-olds everywhere a disservice to tell them they're vote is going to actually influence the outcome of presidential election. it's not. there are lots of good reasons why you might vote because you like voting. that's not the same thing as saying my vote is going to be the decisive vote. it won't. katherine mangu-ward many people vote not because what it accomplishes because they like to vote. she is managing editor of reason magazine. as part of the spotlight on magazine weekly series. we look agent piece, "your vote doesn't count. " do you vote in state and local elections. why or why not. you don't vote in the presidential election. >> i don't vote in state or local elections either. again because the margins are

too big. my vote didn't doing to make a difference as i say if we wind up in a situation where no one else is voting. tps. something that comes up, the idea that if you do it, what if everybody starts to did. and no one votes. that. would be a terrible outcome. i don't want that. i would vote in a pta election where only five people show up. i vote in, you know, meetings at my office where there are only six people voting in the pool. so my official principle is if i have a non-- chance of influence the outcome of the election. i vote. that rule simply doesn't apply to congressional, presidential or state legislature. >> host: what you're saying what will be the outcome if no one voted. not one person. >> guest: right. this is of course, a wonderful opportunity for the ultimately write in ballot. if we wind up in a situation where i am the only voter, you

better believe you're about to meet katherine mangu-ward. on a republican line. hi, dorothy. >> caller: good morning. they asked me for my zip code. my name pops up. >> host: no. the town is. if you tell the call screener you can find out where we're calling you. how does it give your my name. >> host: we don't have your name. glg you knew my name. >> caller: okay. it's weird. you know, i tend to agree with what she said in the past, i didn't i believe you should vote. you should vote and i've been a registered republican i feel like the other guy, you know, who said, you know, the party left him. although i stand on most of the republican principles, you know, conservativism and, you know, i'm a pro-life and all that kind

of thicks. i just do not agree with how they eliminate people when it's clear to so many millions that rand paul was the lead and how they could black him out. disregard him. cheat him, block him from, you know, being on the ballot. so when you have to choose people you don't even want, and then they say, you know, it's like choosing the lesser of two evil. what is the point. evil is still evil. not saying these men are evil. but i'm saying that, you know, if neither of them or good or appealing to you. there's no reason to do it specialsly when it's not the person of your liking. so therefore i feel my vote wouldn't count. and if there's a write in possibility, i don't think paul would get it. most people think he wouldn't be able to make it. that's what they said along. i believe he would have been the right choice to beat obama.

he won out romney and the other candidates he was ahead in all the polls. they lied, and cheated and black him. they acted like he didn't exist. i can go on and on about it. i almost in thinking that if i do vote i'll be voting for gary johnson. i found out more libertarian independ i'll switching from republican to independent. >> host: larrys and i said i degree with you katherine mangu-ward even far third party candidate it's the best chance i have to influence the future position. weigh in on the larry's position and the caller. >> guest: it sounds like the caller is on board with my and jason's clean hand principle when whole process looks dirtedty to you. that's a good reason not vote. actually exactly on the point and on the other person's point,

gary johnson who is a libertarian candidate in this cycle was running ads or running on the slogan throe away the vote. vote for me. i can't remember the exact phrasing. he was saying there are a lot of people who believe the votes don't count or the two major party representatives are not speaking for them. and the third spart a great way to kind of voice that dissent. again, i think they have the advantage. they know their vote is not going influence the outcome of the election. they understand that mas a little bit better. and they're more on board with the idea that the vote is expressive. they're saying something with their vote physical. not only at the ballot box when they talk about it later on c-span. >> host: candidate gary johnson was a guest on monday. you check it out on the archives by going to c-span.org. find more there. a video library has a complete election of appearances on c-span.

our next caller isset in arkansas. independent line. hi. >> caller: hello. gm. >> host: good morning. >> caller: i grow with you on the clean hands principle. to me voting is like the playground and cab i did bar and the candidates are the bullies. jumping up and down in the two-party system. >> host: what are you going do come election day are you going vote? >> caller: this time the libertarian made it on the ballot. in order cope the ballot they have to get 10% of the vote. it kind of forces me to vote for the third party just for other options but i tend to totally agree my vote doesn't count. >> caller: in the magazine, the next cover story in the upcoming issue is going

precisely on the subject of libertarian party and kind of getting up over some of the margins both just to kind of meet and exceed expectations and remain or get on balloter. permanently. these are again, perfectly good reasons to vote expressively. unfortunately in the same way your vote is not going to determine the outcome of the election mom dated by two major party. your vote suspect going get the libertarian party on the ballot in your state. this is a sort of tough truth to face about the mas of voting. that even when the numbers are smaller, even when we're talking about third party even when we're talking about smaller scale elections. the numbers are still pretty big one vote doesn't make a dent. again, though, i'm very sort of happy for anybody who enjoys wear their sticker "i voted sticker" and enjoys saying i

like the libertarian guy. by all means, vote on that. understand you are not actually influencing the outcome of the election or who gets on the ballot. >> host: katherine mangu-ward is the managing editor at the magazine. she was a report for are the weekly stander. she worked a the research for "new york times." the conservative magazine. if you encouraged people not vote do you risk having the candidate that you prefer losing the election be a presidential or on down the ball hot and really being responsible basically for a loss to your party? >> guest: you know, i actually identify as a libertarian i did work at the weekly standard as well. but the kind of argument you're somehow to blame if your guy loses. >> host: your guy or your party what about your principles. >> guest: this is i think a place where i have the sort of get out of jail free card. i'm a political journalist.

so i spend almost all of my time participating in the civic process arguing for my principles. arguing for, you know, the kind of aspectses of political discourt that i think should get more air time. but this is actually a truth for anybody all the way down to somebody who has a -- to somebody have a political discussion this a bar. making your views known if do you think they are important. it's absolutely valuable. but again that's not the same thing as actually showing up on election day and polling the lever for your guy. also, you know, in the same way that it does at some point become rational to play the loather i are if the payout is big enough. even if the odds are long. even if it's unlikely you are going to win. there's a low tow payoff big enough it would be worth it to pay. there's an election payoff big enough to vote if even the odds

are influencing the election are extremely small. when you actually duodo the math it has to be equivalent to something like $5 trillion. that's not your personal benefit it could be the social benefit. an truistic move on your part. i think it's tough to make the case that the difference in terms of sort of net social benefit between guy a and b. democrats and republican it's huge it's worth it. i don't see. >> host: story in time mag zone mast month. how facebook spurred 30,000 extra votes in 2010. a single message -- and more importantly that of frair friend and their friends of friend. >> sure. this is something that i think is familiar with. people do occasionally change their mind in political discussions. it doesn't happen that off. but ere now and theres a golden

moment when you get through to someone and win them over. that story, though, that's just the number of additional people who turned tout vote. which is not at all the same thing changing the outcome of an election. so if we assume those people are split roughly 50/50 or split along similar line all you have done is increase the total count of people who urn turned out to vote. you haven't swayed the outcome of the election. that that's a big difference. you may not have made any difference. you may are done harm by encouraging people who are marginal who know less about the election than constituent who turn tout vote. you shuffled them to the ballot box and said don't vote for president also probably check boxes on the down ballot races

which they know nothing. >> host: jonathan up next on the democrat line. rick: hey. how are you? when i hear this story, i think the last segment that happened with the young youth in college and so forth how they already confused and i'm thinking this is a way of just causing them even more -- as you go on and on you convince people that, you know, it's not important to the african-american veteran i have desert storm. [inaudible] i have seen so much and i look at both [inaudible] it makes me feel god to participate for one, it's like a marriage to a couple of people [inaudible] coming ape cross the lady at the airport and she said i'm not a voter and she speakable you're

not voter those who say they are not a voter they will have so much to talk about. they talk about the problems but they're not involved in trying to at least say this person at least has several idea to me [inaudible] e i hope to have similar close idea to my myself. but i just -- [inaudible] the conversation bothers me. it's me as well. but it bothers me very much. i just -- it's a young lady loved next door 0 to me. she turned 17 i asked her are you going to vote. no. i'm like -- [inaudible]

still razz not registered. she hasn't heard the lady. >> host: thank you for the call. let's though it katherine mangu-ward. >> guest: i hope to run in to your at airport. maybe we can have a chat. i actually very beginning of your comment what you said was, you know, you vote in part because it makes you happy. that's great. go ahead hit pots. vote if it makes you happy as with lot of other things we often like to do them in groups. right up. one way to think about voting it's like cheering for your favorite football team. right. you know in your heart that being in the stand cheerning and puttingen face paint and wearing team colors is not actually going to influence the outcome of the game. it doesn't stop you from feeling like being there is being important. being a part of the team is fun, valuable and this is perfectly good parallel to say by showing up on election day, and checking

the box for you guy you are his football fan. you are his guy wear team colors and cheering. it's fun you like to do it with other people. great. at the same time i think the idea that your getting out of your comment is very common refrain i'm surprised hasn't come up already. if you don't vote you can't complain argument. this is classic catch-22 in a lot of ways. if you don't vote, we say, you can't come plain. you have sort of forfeited your voice in the system. if you vote, though, you have consented to the outcome. whatever it is. my guy or your guy. there's actually kind of in that arpgment there there's no way to get out of consenting to the system. and i think this gets a back to the clean hands principle we talked about earlier.

the idea that voting or or not voting somehow entitles you to speak or not speak about political affairs is completely wrong. it is the duty of citizens to inform themselves for the most part it is the duty of citizens to, you know, be engaged civically but the actual act of registering and going to the ballot box is not the fullest way to realize that duty. >> host: katherine mangu-ward reason magazine "your vote doesn't count." republican line to marry lou in kansas. >> caller: thank you for letting me on. i tried several time and not gotten on. i want to thank the man from maryland who was on a minute ago for his service, my on and grandson both served in iraq and order for the lady to not vote if she doesn't want to. it's a privilege not a duty to

vote. i'm a appalled that anybody would be in front of the tv encouraging people not to vow vote. and i got a little bit of the lady who said there was only one vote or one occasion where one vote counted. and i think that's wrong. i've been a member of the league of women voters for 35 plus years and i used to have information i don't have at my hand right now the number of votes not national probably not even state, but local votes that were won by one vote. i think the last primary there were some elections that were the end of it was flip of a coin because they were tied. one person went vote it would not have been a flip vote.

..

it. >> and i find your guest opens is a and i think she is in the lead is to think especially before the election. she is not very logical. she is not a mathematician because we have the one out of two outcome if you compare it to the lottery is ridiculous. her evidence comes to

fruition because the c-span audience is they are intelligent and educated people that will vote. >>host: what you think about the argument it is a numbers game that your specific vote does not make a difference? >> is not a game whether people have education nor not or cannot of poverty is not a game. the top says disparage the president the other says tom coburn and shows to she is representing today. >>host: talking about the

cover of "reason" magazine talking about other topics in the election preview issue. >>guest: the caller is looking at the statistical argument that the stakes are so high even if it is small it is worth it for me to vote. as i appeal to the mathematics i encourage him to read the piece and think about the numbers particularly at the presidential level. even with the election is very, very close usually by election day it is by a few points if there is any significant gap your choice plummets further. mistakes cannot be high

enough to make it worthwhile for you to vote. if you want to signify solidarity that he is not an elitist and doesn't everybody else does by would urge him to reconsider the act that is expressive to understand this is not the same going into a restaurant ordering a a hot dog or hamburger. elections are not like that. i encourage you to rethink and consider the math.

>>host: the democrats line from north carolina. >> caller: this is my first time calling. i just became a u.s. citizen over the last year. it is a dream come true. to say that your boat does not count i think that is ludicrous. the incumbent president says siam the winner where i come from. it is precious to me so i go out with my regis -- with my accent asking people have you registered? have you registered? have you registered? my wife and i go out there

everyday not being on doors. we never have that freedom. in the great nation of ours i don't believe that. >>host: where did you move here from? >>guest: west africa. liberia at. >>guest: congratulations on your citizenship. you are right to highlight the difference between america's uncorrupted election not that there has been voting irregularities but we do live in a place where elections are free and fair that is huge to be contrasted with other countries where the elections are counterfeit. but that is not the same thing as saying if i do not

vote the will system comes crumbling down. i was lucky enough to be born in the country and i have never voted with the large-scale public will auction -- election that i can recall. yet democracy in doers. that is the great thing even if you do not go to burger if he likes it and considers it the. citizenship, go for it. if he falls ill or gets busy look believe that election will continue to be free and fair. >>host: katherine mangu-ward from "reason" magazine. they keep for coming in.

>>host: tell us first who is the youth vote? is a based on hold somebody is or where you are in life, fully employed? what does that mean? >>guest: we define young voters any young person between the ages of 18 through 29 eligible to vote to. that is how we define it. >>host: give us the sense of the level of enthusiasm with the final weeks of the campaign. house enthusiastic are the youth? >> to be clear it is several

different indicators. but it we see enthusiasm is down compared to 2008. research shows 61% are highly and gauged which is down from 2008. one thing that is concerning we talk about enthusiasm and the turnout but not putting in place the system to ensure that it engagement will stay high from election to election. >>host: abby kiesa look at the numbers the percentage that consider themselves to be highly engaged broken-down bite eight -- by age, 75% and is down 14. what the you attribute the

drop? >> there are some things. there may be some disappointment and the president. this summer poll indicated 40% described the feelings about the president as disappointed. but it could be people in gauged newly for the first time. >>host: if you are a boater between the ages of 18 and 29 joined the conversation.

we are talking with abby kiesa at the center for information and research known as circle at tufts university 81 we looking solely at young people social political engagement and we do research to help strengthen engagement efforts to involve young people. >>host: how does social media come into play campaign 2012? as a barometer and to change opinion? >> both campaigns and engage in social media there is a great number of organizations trying to and

engage people. with respect to elections a lot of discussion happens over social media and we have seen discussion could lead to voting there has been a lot of examples that people can talk about the election. there is the opportunity for people to talk about what has been happening in the debate and be more likely to vote. >>host: a member of the youth vote. >> caller: i have a question. what do say to the young people if the candidates don't their mindset?

at the end of the day that evil is still evil. if you line with republican democrat but if they don't represent you one caller said once you read the bills you find out both parties collude but on television they are so far against each other. it is like the health care bill as well. how do you find yourself besides the social media?

in reality voting for something that does not represent you. i am 23. >>host: did you vote in the last election? >> i did. i was caught up in the hype getting people to register to vote i am disillusioned now. obviously the proof is in the pudding night of see anything different between obama or ravee. >> the focus shows you are frustrated with hyper partisanship and politics. i hear you. at the same time research shows and people thin think

government has a role to deal with the issues in our community. with the political system and outside the system to have a voice. those who had participatory politics to have a voice in a way in which they could have been influence so policy makers and the press know what people care about. >>host: obama's failed the if voters in 2008 and they will not be burned again. >> i may have conservative leaning but mitt romney does

not get to the kids. >> what have they done specifically to get the youth on their side? >> 2012 was interesting because both parties are reaching out to with a strategy. what we saw with the mccain campaign those on college campuses you see a affiliated groups what they have called a historic effort. i have the young americans for rahm the e-mail at work. both campaigns are reaching out to to do appear to peer networking. that is why the election

year is so interesting a couple of elections cycles ago that was not the case. 2008 showed the youth vote does have power to influence election. >>host: we have part of the use of voter blocs. >> caller: that last caller nailed it. mitt romney and barack obama are extremely close with their policies. imm member of the ron paul revolution i was down there at the rnc but they want our vote? all democrats do is to fend bush policy there are so many lost people out there.

to speak as obama's speaks well but they cannot give me the ideology other than giving out free stuff all day long. i was in the projects and they start to see it. the greek debt is too big and affirmative-action is racist. also that to it is time for people to wake up i don't know if i will throw my vote into gary johnson or not. i have the feeling but torch will be passed to his son 2016 but i cannot believe how lost americans have become. we are borrowing $0.40 out of every dollar. it is ridiculous people are

not standing l. baird going crazy thank god we have almost 100 democrats in the house high-capacity it. then you have harry reid and nancy pelosi that want to do nothing but tax tax tax to give the handout. >>guest: thain q for your call. with the youth vote to there is the wide range of ideology including his views and those who agree with him. as people are stereotyped we need to push back because not just the millennials are the most diverse but they are in a lot of different ways but in terms of

education. 40% to not have college experience. we really discount to the voice of young people but to build line it is a situation how to bring people into the process. where the republican party could have a long term period -- future for those who think like them. we are seeing interesting things the way the republican party reaches out but maybe they need to think more deeply about the

future. >>host: ron paul had the overwhelming use both they were alienated the way they treated dr. paul. what do you make of that vote to? >>guest: what we saw with the republican primary was low youth voter turnout. those who affiliate with conservative values there was not to a great deal of participation but as time went along representative paul received the you support and other candidates the sea of larger amounts of support. something happened during

the prairies where the fact of the intense infrastructure plant to into the early states or they reach those that were participating in a different way to seven rehab the democrats' line. >> caller: i want to tell lady the youth who is important but when there party such as republican has the voter i.d. law from 2008 to the only come during the

thanksgiving holiday if i was a student in north carolina and my eight expired on my birthday i would have to go home before the ied expires. everybody had have the identification that disenfranchises the lot of the students. >>guest: thank you for your call. every american should be able to cast a ballot. a great majority of young

people nervous same critical information but we know for research and people are much more likely to turn out to go to when the system is less convoluted. one thing we can do to help people is to provide them with the basic and critical information that they need good day dead does indicate some are less likely to have the identification and we will study this. >>host: looking at the laws across the country it is in the paper today because of the pennsylvania court decision. you can see where bono it is

required let's go to springfield virginia part of the is folk. >> caller: wish more people like me listened to it. i had day controversial message from the romney campaign. it had 96 comments one is from my former church but it was not accusatory or hateful but i thought things were shifting. i was thank 1/2 that four of

to have that conversation. >>guest: they give forgiving bad example. the perfect example of how social media can make your age engagement to promote discussion and voting. young people learn about other people's opinions. some vague it could the echo chamber of what they believe but going on line for interest and hobbies can lead to political engagement thank you for calling with that example. >> vivianne people to not

boats to do not complain. >>host: how old are you? >> caller: 28. good morning. i have a concern being a minority it is hard to get by everyday. i have been oppressed and i see obama so to give him a a chance over another four years we have to pull together. it is not easy to be a minority in america. >>host: